Barnfield Asks... Are Clark Blank Specs Private or Public Property

Industry Talk
81
Quote:

“As SIMA’s executive director Sean Smith says, “As an industry, we need to approach the EPA about chemical issues; these are not going away.””

Who do you think went nose to nose with Sean Smith two weeks ago in Orlando on the floor after the SIMA meeting and put that thought in his head? Yours truely. Yup.

(edited). So that chemicals are not the reason for shocks to the industry.

I don’t think you know me well enough to make those kinds of statements, Doc.

Well, goodie for you, though irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

You wanna tell me just how that applies to the outrageous and easily disproved claims you’re making about Clark production and profit figures?

No? I didn’t think so.

doc…

82

You posted the link.

I found something in it that struck me as something I had a hand in. Something proveable. Seeing as you are accusing me of just falling off the turnip truck and landing in the middle of the surf industry I thought I’d point to that.

Sorry, sir. I can not supply you with the information you have requested. The specifics of the information you have requested are confidential and shall remain confidential. Not for the general public.

But, for the record, I have not seen anything said by anyone and I mean anyone that either proves or disproves anything concerning Clark production figures. All I’ve seen and heard is a lot of talk. Clark Foam was a closely held private concern and unless Grubby signs in or spills in an interview somewhere or winds up testifying under oath in a court of law somewhere, that is all anyone of us will ever know. I think we all need to get a life. Or go for a surf.

It doesn’t matter. Please don’t anyone reply directly to this post. I you have to reply to someone else. I was done when Kokua spoke. That was the only reasonable thing said in this entire thread including everything I wrote.

83

I’ve been asked nicely to reopen this thread, I wasn’t happy about the name naming, please continue…

84

name naming?

let me start off with

RUMPLESTILTSKIN

… ambrose …

85

Let me add, Mickey Spillane.

86

[=1]

Quote:

[ 2]Good question. A visit to the US Patent Office website indicates Clark’s trademark is already expired. He has three patents (shown below) – only covering the manufacture of blanks, not the blanks themselves. Clark’s catalog does not include any copyright notations that I have found. At this point, I know you can call and ice-box a refrigerator (once the brand name of Frigidaire), I would bet you can start calling all urethane blanks “Clarks” – albeit, irreverent.[/]

  1 <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=%27clark+foam%27&OS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;&RS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;" class="bb-url">6,878,025</a> <img src="http://patft.uspto.gov/netaicon/PTO/ftext.gif" alt="" class="bb-image" /> <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=%27clark+foam%27&OS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;&RS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;" class="bb-url">Shape-adjustable mold, skin and interior-core structures for custom board production </a>  2 <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=2&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=%27clark+foam%27&OS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;&RS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;" class="bb-url">6,623,323</a> <img src="http://patft.uspto.gov/netaicon/PTO/ftext.gif" alt="" class="bb-image" /> <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=2&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=%27clark+foam%27&OS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;&RS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;" class="bb-url">Flexible male female mold for custom surfboard production </a>  3 <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=3&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=%27clark+foam%27&OS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;&RS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;" class="bb-url">6,561,118</a> <img src="http://patft.uspto.gov/netaicon/PTO/ftext.gif" alt="" class="bb-image" /> <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=3&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=%27clark+foam%27&OS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;&RS=&quot;clark+foam&quot;" class="bb-url">Flexible male/female mold for custom surfboard production </a>

[/]

Super interesting read on the patents. But I’m curious, what makes you think they are Clark’s patents? I’m not challenging you (people are a little touchy on this Forum) I just didn’t see anything in the patent to indicate it was a Clark patent. Do you know Kirby Mead (are you Kirby Mead)? Also, it seems that these are patents for the manufacture of “pop out” boards, not blanks. Were these the only patents you could find on the production of surfboards?

Thanks,

87

News Flash: There are not patents in surfboards that can hold up in a court of law or be worth paying an attorney for. Why do you think there has never been a lawsuit in this area. No one can lay claim to any design or technique since they were all influenced by someone else and there is not enough money in it.

people that were 100% dependent upon Clark are now paying for their own lack of ingenuity and lazyness. Not to be harsh, but all of our lives are influenced by the decisions we make or those we don’t make. The world is a cruel place at times. As for Clark or any of his shapers owning their designs. What does anyone expect people to do with designs that are not protected legally, but wanted by the paying public?

88

Mark, you come off as a knuckle head.

Monopolistic practices? Don’t you think if he behaved this way he would of had his butt in court years ago? Have you ever considered that most people that claim Clark Foam shut them down for buying from Clark’s competitor probably were hard to do business with and didn’t pay their bills?

Hell, even Greg Loehr used Clark Foam boxes to ship with, don’t you think if they were going to shut anyone down it would be Greg?

Lets look at all the value Clark added that was hard to compete with.

  • 70 sizes in 6 different weights glued to any rocker/stringer configuration delivered in about a week. Very custom yet efficient. Basswood, Cedar, Spruce, Balsa, colored foam, ect...
  • Delivered to your door, you didn't even half to be there, they had keys to most customers shops.
  • Credit to shaper that would pay their bills within terms, no credit checks, ect... On the other hand, if you paid bad, you were cut off.
  • Weekly deliveries, sometimes even twice a week, mean shaper does not need large inventory. Sure beats forking out 40K for a container of foam.
  • Low overall cost due to efficient production methods.
  • Stable pricing that did not fluxate month to month due to changing raw material cost.
These are some pretty heavy barriers for competition.

Regarding compensation, shapers did not have to contribute to the plug making, this was done by choice. It was an ego driven process, kind of like open source software. If the blank was popular, you got the industries respect. On the other hand, if the blank tanked, you lost respect. Shapers typically have huge ego’s, huge payoff for their ego if blank is a sucess.

Back in the day, Clark did help pay for customer advertising in surf publications. Except in Foreign markets, this ended years ago. Clark would pay a percentage of the basic ad cost.

Yes Mr Clark owns a large ranch in Oregon, approx 54K acres. He bought it very cheap and worked his butt off to make it into a profitable working ranch.

89

Peter,

Billy Hamilton has a patent on using printed fabric on surfboard rails. Patent reads that this adds strength to a board. He will sick his lawyers on anyone doing rail cloth inlays. Why do you think he is the only one doing cloth inlays on rails?

Sluggo

90

I know a few folks that do rail cloth inlays…but I am not telling. Who would give a patent for something like that.

91

Good one Sluggo. What many folks don’t like is that Clark left on top and still has his assets. Many of those dependent upon Clark may not be in the same situation very soon. Some of the things mentioned on your list is why I do not think all the foam starting to be shipped into the U.S. is going to save the industry nor many builders. Those with connnections and know how to use alternatives will weather the storm, but I don’t think the real storm has hit yet. It will begin in late Feb. and you will have a good idea how things are going to go about the end of April or begining of May.

When the season hits, you will know where you stand pretty quick. Certainly, your not going to keep rich Americans from their toys very long, but there will not be the supply Clark had, with the Quality Clark had on any type of consistent basis as Clark had. Not for awhile. The Brazilian foam I posted on another thread is only available from what I understand to those shapers with good track records and pay histories. I suspect that type of thing will hurt alot of the guys dependent upon being able to walk in and get what they want. Now they are going to have to do what retailers do; load up on inventory of figure out another way for awhile. Maybe a whole season. It will be interesting to watch it unfold. Ingenuity is an amazing thing at times.

92

"The virtual monopoly Clark Foam has enjoyed is no accident.

[Surfboard shaper] Gordon Clark “undercut all competitors, and he froze out shapers who used other sources. He was shipping a thousand blanks a day. There’s nobody who can replace him,” explained Mark Massara, a San Francisco area surfer and director of the Sierra Club’s California Coastal Program, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec05/surf_12-27.html

Sluggo,

YOU crossed a line.

Not nice calling someone names.

And not replying directly to my post and then bad mouthing me behind my back is chickenshit.

You got something to say to me, have the balls to say it to me, not someone else.

But I consider the source. Sluggo.

The idiot bully cartoon character right?

That character comes off as a dickhead.

Regardless, you ignore the obvious fact that

90% market share is by definition a monopoly.

From all sources he didn’t get there by being the nice guy.

As for his business practices they are common knowledge as the above quote confirms.

Here’s a fact for you in his own words.

He has stated in his own words he stands a good chance of being thrown in jail. I take him at his word. Why don’t you? Don’t bother replying until you can beat that statement. Can you get retracton from him? That is the only way to try and beat it, because he fucking said it, but even retractions can’t trump. YOU will need more, much more. You’re beat.

Here’s another fact for you: April 21, 2006. What does that mean?

As for Greg why don’t you ask him yourself if Clark shut him down?

I have.

What are you afraid of? Getting another answer you don’t like? Just like this one?

As for Greg using free Clark boxes to ship his boards, that is one of the great jokes in the industry. Greg’s way of sticking it to the man. I love it. Don’t you?

I hear there is a life for sale on Ebay. Go check it out.

93 
Howzit solosurfer, The fact that the cloth adds strength to the rails is the reason Bill got the patent. Nobody on Kauai does any cloth rails due to the patent and on top of that they aren't that easy to do and you can do a fake one with a sponge and paint. I've done the sponge rails before and people thought it was cloth.The reason Bill took out this patent was because he lost the Bear board thing to the director of Big Wednesday so he is just protecting his work. Aloha,Kokua
94

Thanks Kokua,

Now I see. Still, it seems strange, because fighting it in court would cost more than what you may win in damages. I remember the Bear thing. There were a couple of guys here in town doing it for awhile before it went away.

Mark,

Your right about calling names. Thats over the line.

On Clark being an asshole: The world of business is full of them and there is two sides to every story. The surfing business has more than it’s share. I have heard folks whine about Clark for years, yet no one banned together to deal with him or jumped on another way of making boards. Instead many shapers tried to cut each other’s throats and jumped all of the the Surftech bandwagon as soon as it popped up. Inflated egos drive this business. It’s like dealing with 15 year olds many times.

I have little sympathy for the shaper that sells out or goes for the big bucks and gets burned. Thats business and thats part of the game. Swaylocks itself could have a major impact were it to go on the hype rampage, but then it would simply be another hypster with a different cause.

95

Mark,

You need to relax, you are coming off like a knuckle head. Thought I was replying directly to your post, thats why I addressed it to “Mark”.

April 21st, 2006 is the day MACT comes into play. Not really an issue in Socal since the SCAQMD has had much stricter rules set for several years on resin useage. Besides there is plenty of technology to get resin at low enough Haps. Mr. Clark made a crap resin for glue ups because it needed to be brittle for ease of shaping. A DCPD resin would work fine.

You know I have toured hundreds of manufacturing facilities including Clark Foam. TDI is a nasty chemical, but it really has been a neccessity in urethane foam for surfboards. From what I have seen, Clark Foam was one of the cleanest, tightly run manufacturing locations I have been to. Mr. Clark going to jail is more of a reflection of trying to use TDI too long in Socal. All the foam coming into Socal, or being made in Socal is TDI based technology (Except Homeblown and one other). I know the other socal manufacturing site does not even come close to taking the same safety steps as Clark Foam. Honestly I really think the surf industry should take a hard look at the products use to make surfboards, especially the disposable potato chip boards on the market.

Besides, Clark Foam is gone, you all have bigger problems now. Every wanabe with a foam formula is going to be trying to jump in the market, plus there will be lots of containers of foam coming from overseas with a strange mix of sizes and rockers. In a year and a half from now it is going to be a mess. There will probably be an over abundance of the wrong sized blanks available and not enough of the right product available.

Also, why do you keep quoting people that are not in the no. Mark Massara from the Sierra Club? And how is buying boxes Sticking it to the man? Nothing like making a 40% margin on accessories like boxes.

96

I don’t think fabric over the rails is such a new thing that warants a patent. That was being done in the mid to late sixties. Check out the link.http://www.classicbingsurfboards.com

97

Patents or loose ends, legal eagle or pirate it download hit . . .

If I was getting into the blank blowin biz . . .

Here’s how I’d do it. I’ve got the catalog of Clark Blanks. http://www.clarkfoam.com/Seabase%20Clark%20Foam%20Catalogue.pdf

It shows the names of the shapers. For what ever blank plug to copy, I’d go to the shaper and ask them if I can use it . If there is a price involved I’ll pay it, if its reasonable. If it’s not . . . well I don’t get that plug. If no price, I’d do what Clark did: put their name on that blank . . . If they don’t have the Clark one . . . well I’ve got the dims for the shaper, and they can recreate that plug for me. Have them sign an agreement, and its done.

Timeless though . . . whatever happened to the days where budding shapers would roll into the surfshop, take a board off the racks, trace its outline, and get the dims, fins, rocker, rails etc . . . and the shop owner would laugh. A shaper would be, “dude that guy bit off me! Nice!”, and copying was a compliment to how good your steez is. Confidence that you are the original and cannot be duplicated.

98

The new polyurethane blanks will have a long way to go to prove they have quality cores. Most of the craftsman who are in the Clark catalog would not want to be associated w/ low quality products. Quality cores are key, and until board builders use them and sell them to their customers will we see how good they are, and how long (or short) they hold up. This holds true for Walker foam too. Imagine the line of dissatisfied customers coming back w/ their mushy decks, broken boards, and delaminations. It could make of break your business.

99

I disagree,

40 years of poor quality glass jobs with pu resin needed something to blame when the customer brought back a snapped board. And that was always the foam blank, no matter who made it. In a decade we will all realize it was the inferior product of pu/pe products compared to eps and epoxy. unfortunately the learining curve for an appropriated glass schedule for the eps density being used will be the weak link. Because to pu glassers this will be rocket science to them for a few years. But lawn mowing is pretty straight forward.

100

Foammaster – I kind of agree to an extent, but my point wasn’t intended to compare core types, just polyurethane quality. Until those containers from Brazil and China get here and get used will we see how they get compared to what our standards have been.

Back in the 80’s a few boards manufactures lived the nightmare of extruded foam expansion, and epoxy glass work trials and errors. The impacted of returned boards was significant and lasted quite a while until all of the products were out of circulation.

In this case I’m talking about polyurethane foam imports. Time will tell and I’m sure that many builders’ futures and reputations will be on the line.

I’m all for the progression of epoxy. For me, styro / epoxy correlates to function w/ o the cosmetic BS those PU buyers seem to put so much significance on.